IS BURGER KING THE king of burgers? Hard to say since the Burger industry has so many choices. And the king has decided to go social activists rather than focus on their product.

Starting with a misleading video on Net Neutrality, the chain now introduced an anti-bullying PSA.

Now what’s wrong with that? You might be asking. It could be nothing, but it gives the impression that they care more about social justice than their customers.

Take the new ad, they have teen actors pretend to bully another teen and send their customers “bullied” burgers, and record the reactions. Will the customers be more upset about the burgers or the bullied? If it were me, I’d be furious that they care more about catering to activists than to paying customers.

I don’t go to Burger King often, so losing my business would be imperceptible to their bottom line but that they value their customers, so little is troubling. Especially when the market has so many options and burgers, are not their only competition. Fast food and restaurants are a demonstration of the success possible in the free market.

If examined, there are probably already signs of distress within the company because this. Keep in mind this merely speculation on my part.

Besides the willingness to dismiss their customers, the causes they are advancing, and the marketing campaigns are baffling. So far, Net Neutrality and bullying are their causes. And both campaigns have issues; the Net Neutrality one is blatantly wrong in their analogy and the bullying one is inviting a lawsuit.

Either they don’t understand Net Neutrality, or they are on the wrong side. To do their concept accurately it would have to be, the customers getting more than the asked for. Net Neutrality using their burger analogy would be the customer orders a a burger and they are served the burger and a chicken sandwich, fries, a chocolate shake, a dessert and everything else off the menu. Or they never get the burger at all and only get everything else that you don’t want.

As for the other ad, I’m confused exactly what they were expecting the customers in their establishment to do. Verbally confront the “bullies?” But what if the patrons turned violent on the actors? That’s not even all that unlikely given how passionately people have gotten on the issue. Or worse what if one of the patrons were armed? Is the little impromptu theater worth the life of one of these actors? It’s not the patrons’ responsibility to make and keep a safe environment, it’s the business owners.

However you look at it, this idea by Burger King management is asking for trouble, starting with that it appears both ads are online only. The chain could have put these ads online and on TV, a plan that would make more sense. Maybe it’s just my skeptical nature, but when things don’t add up, it generally is because of the worst case scenario. In this case, I suspect they are trying to reach a specific demographic, the youth. Those passionate youth, that will cause “the next social revolution” and won’t question these causes. Can we just get the fries and hold the social justice, please?

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

WITH SO MUCH COMMUNICATION being online and not in person, misunderstanding have become common. This is especially true with online dating when people feel particularly vulnerable. It has gotten better with the advent of emojis–digital symbols that are representative analogues of the human face–but the problems haven’t gone away entirely.

Why is this? Well, mostly it has to do with those who didn’t grow up with the internet still adapting to it. Many of us older millennials–in our mid to late thirties–haven’t fully altered to the digital communication exchanges and treat them as a regular exchange. Even talking on the phone has a lesser chance for misunderstanding since a verbal tone is present.

Another factor is that we have increased interaction with others who are basically strangers, from all over the world. Using a platform with less cues to gather information about the intention of the other person, we are more on guard than in a physically present discussion. Body language comes into play to tell us what is on the others mind, so we can react.

So, what’s the solution? Trust everyone online? No, definitely not. There are plenty of sexual predators and con artists on the internet, so protecting yourself is important, just maybe learn to be better at online interaction.

Misunderstandings are generally on both sides so consider how you may have contributed to it. Were you to eager to make a judgement on the other person? Did you get too personal too soon in the discussion? If you wouldn’t share the information about yourself on a first date, you probably shouldn’t in your first online discourse either. Learn to read online cues and don’t get frustrated, it gets easier. As in real life, it could also be the timing.

Online dating sites have made measures to assist you in staying safe. After all, in the information age a bad review or rating has more clout than word of mouth. It teaches more consumers a lot faster, so keeping visitors safe is a top priority. Look through their suggestions. Most of all remember what you’re there for, if you joined a dating site, treat it like such. It’s not a social site like Facebook, it’s for meeting people. Don’t get upset at others when they want to meet up.

I’m not suggesting blind trust but what author Stephen M. R. Covey (son of Stephen R. Covey, author of The7HabitsofHighlyEffectivePeople) calls “Smart Trust,” the concept a certain amount of trust is appropriate. If you start out with distrust for others that’s what you will get in return. So, give them the benefit of the doubt until they give you a valid reason not to trust them. In regard to online interaction, where you can simply “block” or “unfriend” anyone, this should definitely be put in practice.

A meme that I found is a fitting description of what dating has become:

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books of pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

IT’S A STORY THAT HAS BEEN told from history–“it was a dark and stormy night in 1815, when Mary Shelly and her hosts started telling ghost stories, that night she had a dream which inspired her take and the book Frankenstein was born.”

That’s not all there is, however. One thing that influenced the story was her activist roots. She was rather born into it, her parents being suffragists and her father making sure she lived up to those feminist ideals of her mother who died in child birth. Oh great he’s going to go into another anti-feminist rant. Actually no, she was a feminist in the same vein as Lucy Ball and Camilla Paglia, not Gloria Stenim. But her activism is cause for concern.

She wasn’t just a feminist, she was also against the age of enlightenment, specifically when it came to Medical technology. Basically she had a similar attitude then as those who still oppose Medical marijuana today. It doesn’t matter if there’s a benefit to people or they should have the option of utilizing a treatment, it’s said it could be harmful so it’s not worth the risk.

The monster was an analogy of the idea of technology unrestrained but it was a fear that has always been unfounded. There have always been ethical concerns and debates in medicine and as the technology improves so do the debates. Did Mary Shelly have anything to do with that? Maybe, but not intentionally, she didn’t want the technology to exist at all according to the history books.

And think she would be appalled with how pop culture has adapted her story. The 1931 Universal Pictures classic adaptation of Frankenstein, altered the monster from a homicidal killer without remorse to a victim. The victim notion opens up the debate of whether the technology still is valid for research. It was simply as mistake that time maybe if it’s repeated it could be done right.

The 1935 classic BrideofFrankenstein also makes an odd prediction of the future of the technology. The doctor to enlist the assistance of Doctor Frankenstein in his experiments, explains that he grew his miniature people from “seeds” rather than stitching them from corpses. These “seeds” that he was discussing sounds like a rudimentary understanding of stem cells and genetics technology. We are seeing the early stages of this science right now, as it develops we will have the option to routinely use the cells from our own bodies to grow healthy replacement organs for transplants, guaranteeing a successful surgery. And no need for the donors to put themselves at any risk at all.

The concept that makes more sense came from the late author Dr. Micheal Crichton. He claims in his books that while treading carefully would serve most prudent, research into the Medical technology and sciences is still best for all mankind. And he does have a little more knowledge on the subject.

While authors such as Stephen King and Mary Shelly sit back and postulate the most outlandish and unlikely worst case scenarios to dissuade their readers from supporting possibly life saving sciences, those who understand it best says proceeding tentatively is the right course. Who ends up the real monster then?

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.